New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-03-06
IS ROYCOrTING CRIMINAL

To IN LdtfOF or me IFiOHHc'
SIR: Now that the strikes over, IL Is worth whilo
TO look for moment No the question OF responsibility for
the injury occasioned the part Of those by whom the
strikes originated That the injury resulted ana was
intended is unqucstoncd Are those who caused 1t to he
inflicted scot free, they be held to respond
therefor They absolute immunity because as
they say they only exercised their influence" 10 induce
others TO do the acts which produced the injury They
only ordered the strikes they requested workmcn
10 leave "they persuaded others not 10 take their
places" they threatened cost and expenses'-they
stopped business they "bOycoticd" all trade anu
all because certain employers would not
agree arbitrary advance Of wages. which the EN-
poyes did not demand but which the orginaor deereed
should be paid The result o direct loss to en-
ployers, which Bradsireet estimates 10 have
been over a million OF dollars Doubtless the
delegates" and boards" not worth pur-
suing FOR n 1.-THE any part OF this sum,
and the question has therefore pecuniary value
But in view Of the possibilities OF criminal law against
further strikes and their ornaors the question becomes
important, whether the claimed immunity exists Does
the law when n uses the words threats and ntimda-
ton physical violence only or does 1t hold there
under that influence which accompshes the same re-
suit a. a blow, is within its intent and meaning We
commend the question 20 tao District-Aorncys both
state and United states. Certainly Jealous AMI ell
cieut officers they VIII not be unwilling to DO all in their
mower To prevent repetition OF the painful and injurious
acts which have characterized the last month lie vino
Influences others 10 refuse TO coal steamer
which carries the mas-whO, IN the Same manner, pre-.
vent. the loading unloading ~ cargoes and threatens
with cost and expense those yei In aawful com
mcrcc unless his Independent demands aro complied
WITH prolIccs precisely tho result ~ is accom-
pli>ncd hy physical violence Does the criminal law 80
regard i'll This must Dc answered 10y those charged
with its administration, and comment the inquiry 10
them.
That awe and Influence cannot be exercised with
out responsibility has been -tcIty asserted by English
turtles and In Rafael ". Netclast two Black
stones Reports .O5JJ the plaintiff arrested and inn
pr.oucd ia India by the sovereign of one OF tho Indian
PROVINCES sued the defendant In England for hay
ing n.gated the The jury found thht the arrest
and upri -onncnt by tie means and procurement
of the defendant and that tho sovereign in ordering the
same WIS the and influence Of the defendant,
and acted contrary his own inclination being fearful
OF offending him." ana they gave the palntin 1900
damages and the court affirmed the JudgLeut saying
After such q nndn, there is no room Tor argument
This while IL illustrates the position OF the satisfied
employees who struck" establishes the rule that those
who exercise "awc and influence" are responsible Tor
tho result, thereof and would 10 prove that TO
constitute offender II Is not necessary that there
should he either blnnl-hcd or murder. CIyI[
Ne,c York, Feb. -, l--1.